Findings from emergency response in Sudan: a 48-hour joint humanitarian effort

Sudan has been plagued by multiple crises. The conflict in Darfur, which began in 2004, has been compounded by political and economic instability since October 2021, and more recently, escalating violence and civil war in the capital Khartoum in April 2023. Climate change further complicates the situation – leading to an increased number and intensity of natural disasters such as flooding. Severe flooding since 28 August 2025 has led to at least 32 deaths, and has displaced around 4,000 people, with more than 2,000 homes destroyed. Sudan has also experienced concurrent outbreaks of cholera and dengue fever since 2024, affecting thousands of people across the country. This situation has further strained Sudan’s already fragile health system. Simultaneously, nearly 25 million people are acutely food insecure, with famine present in more parts of Sudan than in any other single country.

Additionally, the concurrent armed conflicts globally continue to exacerbate the crisis and uncertainty in Sudan, with competing funding implications for healthcare infrastructure, workforce capacity, resourcing, and supply chains across the global landscape. The April 2023 hostilities catapulted the nation into renewed armed conflict, with civilians bearing the consequences: more than 8.6 million people are estimated to be displaced. By various points in 2025, more than 11 million individuals were internally displaced, over half of whom were children, while nearly 70% of health facilities in conflict-affected areas remained non-functional.

Since the initial attacks in Khartoum, humanitarian actors have worked tirelessly to meet the needs of the communities they serve. As the conflict continues, this article draws on the rapid response efforts of Alight and Save the Children to highlight lessons for organisations providing services in conflict-affected settings.

Alight, Save the Children, and the 48-hour response process

The 48-hour response, launched with Sudan Humanitarian Fund (SHF) support, enables humanitarian actors to respond quickly to crises – such as natural disasters, mass displacement, or disease outbreaks – through a simplified process in which partners submit a concept note outlining their proposed response plan and strategies. Within 48 hours, responses are approved and mobilised, ensuring that life-saving assistance reaches affected communities with minimal delay.

The purpose of this article is to illustrate the 48-hour response process and validate its effectiveness, enabling humanitarian actors in other fragile and conflict-affected settings to replicate this model.

While this article identifies several strengths and essential implications for rapid response mechanisms, it also has several limitations. First, the analysis relies primarily on document review and internal reporting, without direct engagement with affected populations. As a result, affected voices are not represented, limiting insights into community perspectives on effectiveness and inclusivity. Second, while the selected cases reflect geographic and sectoral diversity, they do not systematically capture differences in gender, disability and socioeconomic status, which may affect how services were accessed or experienced. Finally, the reliance on internal documentation introduces the possibility of reporting bias, with positive results more likely to be captured than challenges or failures.

Experience implementing the 48-hour response

Findings from the implementation of the 48-hour response mechanism demonstrate that pre-positioned funding, decentralised decision-making, and community-based partnerships were central to its effectiveness across multiple sectors. The ‘48-hour’ mechanism refers to the rapid approval and release of emergency funding within 48 hours of a verified trigger, allowing implementing partners to immediately mobilise personnel, procure essential supplies, and begin response activities while larger operational components are established. For example, decentralised decision-making allowed state-level teams in Kassala and Gedaref to initiate cholera response interventions within days of detecting an outbreak. Using a 48-hour process, funds were quickly approved, enabling local health authorities, Alight, and their partners to set up cholera treatment centres within five days. This effort treated over 1,100 patients and contributed to improved control of the outbreak.

Across these interventions, several operational enablers were consistently observed. One was the consortium model, which paired international and national non-governmental organisations (NGOs), fostered efficient coordination, reduced duplication and strengthened local capacity. For instance, Sudanese partner organisations such as Sahari, Almanar Voluntary Organisation and Jamal Marra Charity Organisation played a central role in facilitating access to hard-to-reach areas, particularly in Darfur and Kordofan, where local presence and contextual knowledge were critical. National partners led community engagement, conducted rapid needs assessments and delivered services, enabling faster, more contextually appropriate responses. Localisation was integral to the mechanism’s success: by engaging national partners and community committees, the response enhanced ownership and sustainability, even amid access restrictions.

Localisation was operationalised through the engagement of community committees and national NGOs in implementation and decision-making. For example, in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions in Gedaref, community members were directly involved in site planning and infrastructure management, which improved both service uptake and sustainability.

Moreover, rapid decision-making at the subnational level, facilitated by simplified approval protocols, enabled timely mobilisation in highly volatile environments. A clear example of the mechanism’s effectiveness is the flood response in White Nile State, where community-led shelter initiatives were implemented following rapid funding approval. Through participatory mapping and disaster risk reduction training, local committees identified priority interventions, including drainage improvements and the construction of safe shelters. This approach supported over 33,000 individuals and strengthened community preparedness for future shocks.

However, notable constraints remain. The ceiling of $500,000 per intervention limits the scale and duration of activities, while security constraints and logistical barriers impede monitoring and real-time oversight. The mechanism’s dependence on internal reporting and the absence of direct feedback from crisis-affected people reduces opportunities for participatory validation. Similar limitations have been documented in other rapid-response contexts, such as during the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where response speed occasionally outpaced community engagement. Balancing speed with accountability, therefore, is a critical challenge for sustaining credibility and impact in crisis-driven interventions.

The 48-hour mechanism enables quick emergency responses, but enhancing preparedness among government, partners and donors for emergencies, such as outbreaks and flooding, is crucial for sustainable community resilience. Comparative evidence from other humanitarian contexts further underscores the relevance of Sudan’s experience. In the Philippines, country-based pooled funds and decentralised coordination mechanisms during Typhoon Haiyan improved the timeliness and efficiency of aid. GOAL and partners present another example of an emergency response mechanism: they provided nutrition interventions, clean water, and health and shelter services in affected Ethiopian communities. Coordinated efforts between clusters across these intervention areas were instrumental in ensuring service delivery in a time of conflict.

Sudan’s 48-hour response model builds upon these lessons, integrating real-time funding with community co-creation – thereby offering a scalable framework adaptable to diverse emergencies. Overall, the mechanism demonstrates that when speed is strategically combined with localisation and intersectoral coordination, humanitarian response can achieve both immediacy and depth of impact. At the same time, translating this potential into sustained impact requires confronting important operational and structural constraints. However, it also reveals significant challenges that must be addressed if this approach is to be scaled and sustained in the long term.

The consortium model underpinning the mechanism has further enhanced its effectiveness by streamlining approval processes and providing equal opportunities for both national and international NGOs. Alight and Save the Children, as the consortium leads, manage funds and guide local partners through the application process, ensuring clarity around requirements. This capacity-strengthening role is reinforced through on-the-job training and project management support, with at least 30% of allocations reserved specifically for Sudanese partners. The allocation of at least 30% of funds to national partners reflects a minimum benchmark rather than a limit, with ongoing efforts to increase direct funding flows to local actors in line with global localisation commitments. Such an approach demonstrates a deliberate commitment to localisation, ensuring that Sudanese organisations are not only implementers, but can also invest in institutional growth and long-term preparedness. While consortium leads retained fund management responsibilities due to donor compliance and fiduciary requirements, national partners were actively involved in implementation and decision-making.

Under the 48-hour mechanism, partners also receive a 5% overhead allocation and may budget for essential supplies and equipment within project limits. In addition, feedback from previous reflection and learning processes has not identified the overhead cap as a major constraint in implementation. Decentralised decision-making structures within the Consortium Management Unit further support partner engagement, where heads of organisation meet in caucus to harmonise positions before engagement with the SHF. Technical Working Groups and regular coordination meetings also ensure that partners participate in operational and technical decision-making, reinforcing the principle of equal partnership regardless of organisation type. Ongoing efforts aim to strengthen financial management systems among local organisations to enable more direct access to funding in the future.

Strengths and limitations

Collaboration within the consortium has been a defining feature of the 48-hour response. By leveraging the complementary strengths of different organisations, the mechanism fosters a spirit of partnership that improves both coordination and delivery. The multi-sectoral nature of the response, where Alight leads in health and nutrition, while Save the Children leads in WASH, shelter, non-food items and protection, encourages partners to design integrated interventions. Within the 48-hour window, consortium partners submit harmonised or complementary concept notes, which are reviewed in parallel by the donor, consortium leads, and relevant clusters. Cluster coordination mechanisms also play a key role in validating technical appropriateness and ensuring alignment with ongoing responses. Where multiple partners propose overlapping responses in the same geographic area, coordination processes support harmonisation or redirection to avoid duplication and ensure coverage of unmet needs. In some cases, partners can submit coordinated concept notes across sectors (e.g., health and nutrition and WASH) to ensure a comprehensive response package for an emergency. Continuous communication between Alight, Save the Children and other partners further supports consistency and integration in emergency response design. This harmonisation of resources enables comprehensive, contextually appropriate packages of assistance, reducing duplication and ensuring that communities receive a more holistic response.

A further strength of the mechanism is its strong emphasis on community ownership, which underpins the sustainability and effectiveness of interventions. For example, settlement and water committees trained under WASH programmes were equipped to manage infrastructure well beyond the emergency phase, thereby reinforcing local capacity and resilience. Similarly, participatory approaches in shelter projects, such as community mapping and disaster risk reduction training, not only provided immediate relief but also prepared communities to better withstand future shocks. These examples illustrate that the 48-hour response is not simply a short-term mechanism; it can bridge emergency response with longer-term resilience-building.

Without long-term financing commitments, there is a danger that the gains achieved through this approach may not be fully consolidated. Security constraints and access restrictions continue to hinder effective monitoring and oversight, raising concerns about accountability and the consistency of service delivery. Furthermore, the limited presence of consortium leads in certain implementation states has at times compromised close supervision. While these gaps have been partially mitigated through memoranda of understanding between organisations, the need for stronger monitoring frameworks remains evident. In areas where access constraints limited the presence of consortium leads, national partners and community-based actors played a critical role in maintaining continuity of services, demonstrating the operational importance of local capacity in insecure environments. These constraints underscore the importance of striking a balance between rapid response and robust accountability systems to ensure both quality and equity in humanitarian delivery.

Conclusion

The 48-hour response mechanism demonstrates that rapid, decentralised and partnership-driven approaches can significantly enhance the timeliness and effectiveness of humanitarian response in conflict settings. Evidence from Sudan highlights the importance of combining pre-positioned funding with strong local partnerships and multisectoral coordination.

However, sustaining these gains requires addressing key challenges, including strengthening accountability systems, expanding direct support to national actors, and integrating community feedback mechanisms. At the same time, evolving displacement patterns require greater investment in anticipatory planning, flexible funding windows, and area-based approaches that respond to secondary and protracted displacement. Strengthening data systems to track mobility trends and to ensure inclusive access to services for newly displaced populations remains a critical priority.

As such, the model offers both a promising framework and important lessons for improving emergency response globally.

Christina Kajiba Christopher is a Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL) specialist with over eight years of experience designing and implementing MEAL systems across multi-sectoral humanitarian and development programs in Tanzania, South Sudan, and Sudan.

Akram Abdel Gayoum Abbas is a Senior Learning and Evidence Specialist with 18+ years of experience in research, policy analysis, and evidence generation across humanitarian and development contexts in Sudan. His expertise includes education, child protection, social policy, and gender.

Liliane Birasa is a public health professional with over 15 years of experience in health programming and systems strengthening. Her expertise includes disease prevention, hygiene promotion, malnutrition prevention, and maternal and child health services.

George Douglas Torach has expertise in humanitarian coordination, partnership management, and Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL). George currently coordinates emergency rapid-response consortia to address emergency-induced health and nutrition needs in Sudan.

Omer Ali is a medical doctor (MBBS) specialising in community medicine and public health. He has extensive experience in emergency health, migration health, TB programs, and community development, having worked with FMOH Sudan, QRC, IOM, ICRC, and currently Alight Sudan.

Mohammed Abdallah Idriss Mussa is a senior humanitarian and development professional with 19+ years of experience leading complex multi-sectoral programs. He is currently the Executive Director of Alight Sudan.

Muhammad Hamid is a Shelter and NFI Specialist and civil engineer with 8+ years of experience implementing humanitarian programs in Sudan. His expertise includes shelter, CCCM, NFIs, WASH, and construction, with strong emergency response experience in refugee and IDP settings across Darfur, Kordofan, and South Sudanese refugee camps.

Hiba Abdeldaim is Head of MEAL with 14+ years of experience designing and managing MEAL systems for multi-sector humanitarian and development programs in Sudan. Her expertise includes MEAL, food security, livelihoods, gender mainstreaming, agriculture extension, and community development.

Elsheikh Abdalla is a Child Protection in Emergency Specialist at Save the Children Sudan, with expertise in designing and implementing child protection programs in humanitarian contexts. His experience spans West Darfur, South Kordofan, White Nile, and Aljazeera, focusing on safeguarding vulnerable children and communities.

Mohammed Adam Fedail is a humanitarian leader with 15+ years of experience managing multi-sector programs, consortia, and emergency operations across Sudan. He has expertise in donor compliance, partner capacity strengthening, risk management, and strategic leadership.

Aparna G. Kachoria is a PhD Candidate at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health. She has been working with the Alight Sudan team for the past four years, assisting with the dissemination of Alight and partners’ important efforts in response to the ongoing conflict in Sudan.

Dwayvania ‘Dee’ Miller is a second-year Preventive Medicine resident and has completed her Infectious Disease fellowship and Master of Public Health at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health.

Dilshad Jaff, MD, MPH, is an Associate Professor with the Gillings School’s Department of Public Health Leadership and Practice, as well as a Gillings Humanitarian Health Initiative lead. He is an expert in complex humanitarian crises and global health for more than 20 years.